472 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIII. TORONTO ADMIRALTY DISTRICT. 1911 April 6. THE DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN DREDGING COMPANY PLAINTIFFS, AGAINST THE SHIPS "'A MAZONAS " AND " MONTE-ZUMA " AND THE DAVIDSON STEAMSHIP COMPANY. DEFENDANTS. Shopping—Collision—Jurisdiction—Contributory Negligence.—Evidence. 1. To establish contributory negligence in the case of a collision, the evidence must be clear and definite. 2. A collision occurring in Canadian waters between foreign vessels places the owners of the damaged ship under the protection of Can-adian law, and the court has jurisdiction to entertain an action for damages. The Milwaukee, (11 Ex.C.R. 179) followed. T HIS is an action brought by the plaintiffs against the Steamers Amazonas and Montezuma and the owners the Davidson Steamship Company, to recover damages for injuries to the Brian Boru, a dredge belonging to the plaintiffs, as the result of a collision which took place on the night of the 28th day of September, 1908. The trial of the case took place at Windsor, before the Local Judge for the Toronto Admiralty District, on the 20th and 21st days of December, A.D. 1910. A written argument subsequently was put in on which judgment was reserved. The facts of the case are set out in the reasons for judgment. F. A. Hough, for the plaintiff;
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. The witnesses all agree that the collision took place about 2 a.m. Sept. 29th, 1908, that the night was dark with a moderate strong westerly wind blowing. The dredge was at anchor working. on her contract with her attendant scow lashed alongside. -If the contract of making this channel was a legiti- mate and proper one, as it unquestionably was, the izoNT . dredge and the scow, which was â necessary part of her equipment, were in a perfectly proper place, and the only place in which they could be in while engaged in the performance of that contract at that particular time. The contract was being carried on under the instructions of the Government engineers, pursuant to clause 35 of the contract, and the contractors were not in any way obstructing navigation, being entirely outside of the navigable channel, as marked by the lights and buoys at that time. The dredge was stationary, being at anchor and at work on her contract at the point indicated above. The Amazonas and Montezuma were bound down the river full speed, which they never slackened from the time they left the Rouge until they reached their destination. The Amazonas could tow the seven miles an hour. Added to this there would be the force of the current over the Lime Kiln Crossing. Defendants' witnesses put the current at four or five miles an hour, although their preliminary act fixes it at seven miles an hour, which they cannot be heard to contradict. However, the better judgment of those working at the crossing that night places the current at about five miles an hour, which would mean that the defendant ships passed the place of collision, where plaintiffs' dredge was anchored, at the rate of 12 miles an hour, 473 1911. Tins DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN DRE G1ND rO. - Tv. HE SHIPS AMAZONAS E ZimIA . i)nvTD EN STEAMSHIP Argum ent of Courser". Montezuma
474 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIII. i or one mile every five minutes, 2,112 feet in two minutes, 191 1,056 feet in one minute. THS DUNBAR AND The witnesses who were on the defendant ships swear SULLIVAN DREDGING positively that they passed down the westerly side co. of the Lime Kiln Crossing channel, the Amazonas THE SHIPS within 50 feet of the buoys and lights marking the AMAZONAS AND westerly limit of the channel, and the Montezuma MONTEZUMA AND THE "trailing off in the wind, " but not more than 100 feet DAVIDSON STEAM SHIP from this westerlyrow of lights. It is absolutely , Co. however, that the defendant ships could not have been O o p r c = o u i n n s e t l h . is channel as marked byth e ligh g t s and buoys , and that they could not have followed the course their navigators appear to think they followed, otherwise they would not have passed within at least 200 feet of the dredge, and there could have been no collision. These witnesses, on the other hand, all agree that the Amazonas passed within about fifty feet of, and unquestionably the Montezuma collided with, the scow. It follows, therefore, that the defendant ships were quite out of the channel at the time of the collision and that those in charge of them did not know where they were. This is also made apparent by the evidence of Capt. Hayberger, master of the Amazonas, who says that he saw the row of lights marking the west side of the channel and kept within fifty feet of them all the way down; that he saw no lights to the east of him, except the north one, until he got down to Malden, the next light below the south lightship, when he got back into the channel again. It appears therefore that the row of lights which the captain says he held up to within fifty feet of, were the row marking the east side of the channel, instead of the west side, and that as a matter of fact while passing through this most dangerous part of the whole river, he and his crew and the master and crew of his consort, lost their bearings altogether.
VOL. XIII.] EXCTTEQUER COURT REPORTS. 475 The general rule is that a vessel at anchor in a proper lslÿ place observing the precautions required by law is not THE D UNBAR liable for the result of a collision with a moving vessel. (1). SULLIVANN D IN`' And passing vessels should give the anchored vessel DRco a sufficiently wide berth to pass by in safety, taking THE SHIPS into consideration the effect of wind and current and AMAZONAS AND other contingencies of navigation as may reasonably be MONTEZUNA AND THE anticipated. (2) DAVIDSON STEGo.HIP And it has been held that whether. the anchored .vessel is in an improper place or not the vessel in motion Argument must avoid her if practicable and can only exculpate of Counsel. herself by showing that it was not in her power by adopting any practicable precaution to have prevented the collision. (3) In an action founded on a collision between a vessel at anchor and one in motion the burden of proof is upon the latter to prove that the : collision was not occasioned by any negligence on her part. See the Annot Lyle, (4) see also the Indus, (5) . In Marsden on Collisions, p. 30 et seq. it is laid down: "The general rule that a vessel under way is prima facie in fault in a collision with a ship at anchor applies, (1) A. & E. Enc. of Law, Vol. 25, page 940; Commander-in-Chief 1 Wall. (U. S.) 43 affirming 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2216. The Lady Franklin, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 220. The John H. May, 52 Fed. Rep. 882. The Buffalo (C.C.A.). 55 Fed. Rep. 1019. The Steven Decatur, 108 Fed. Rep. 446. (2) The John H. May, 52 Fed. Rep. 882. The D. H. Miller, (C.C.A.) 76 Fed. Rep. 877. Wilhelmsen v. Ludlow, 79 Fed. Rep. 979. The Minnie, 100 Fed. Rep. 128. The Langfond, 102 Fed. Rep. 699. • The Aller, 38 U.S. App. 549. (3) The Clarita, 23 Wall. ' (U.S.) 14. The D. S. Gregory, 6 Blatch. (U.S.) 528. Green v. The Helen, 1 Fed. Rep. 916. The Shaw, 6 Fed. Rep. 923. The Mary Nettie Snudberg, 100 Fed. Rep. 887. (4) 11 P.D. 114. (5) 12 P. D. 46.
476 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIII. 1911 although the latter is in an improper place, or has no THE riding light, provided that the former could with DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN ord i nary care have avoided her. It is the bounden DR Ilya Co duty of a vessel under way, whether the vessel at THE v S HIPS anchor be properly or improperly anchored, to avoid, AMAZONAS if it be possible with safety to herself, any collision AND MONTEZUMA whatever." AND THE DAVIDSON In the Batavier (1) Dr. Lushington was of opinion • STEAMSHIP Co. that even if a ship is brought up in the fairway of a Argument river, if the other could with ordinary care have of Counsel. avoided her, the latter should be held solely to blame. Dredging vessels when at work and stationary, have the rights of vessels at anchor. (2). The defendants seek to rebut the presumption of their liability in having collided with a ship at anchor, by setting out the fact of a prior collision of the Mon-tezuma with the ship Osier, which took place a short distance above the North lightship, and which they allege caused the Montezuma to sheer into the dredge. These plaintiffs, however, are in no way to blame for the collision between the Montezuma and the Osier s and even if the Osier could be proved to be at fault, it would be merely a question of a right of contribution against her on the part of the owners of the Amazonas. The evidence, however,. does not prove any negli-ence on the part of the Osier, but rather that even before defendants met the latter ship, they were not following the "starboard hand rule", and were on the • wrong side of the channel. From the evidence of these same independent witnesses it further appears. that this collision caused no perceptible sheer on the part of the Montezuma. (1) 2 W. Rob. 407. (2) American Dredging Co. v. The Bedowin 1 Fed. Cas. No. 299. The D. H. Miller (C.C.A.) 76 Fed. Rep. 877. The Virginia Ehrman, 97 U. S. 309
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 477 But however this may be, the Osier did not touch 1911 the Amazonas, did not therefore affect her steerage THE DUNBAR AND way, and could not be in any way responsible for her SULLIVAN taking the wrong course through the Lime Kiln Cross- DxCo Ix(] ing, which she evidently did, and her consort with THE SHIPS her. Nor had they any other excuse for •not following . AM AZONAs the proper channel, for according to the evidence of MONTEZUMA ANI) THE Colbourne nothing passed over the crossing either DAVIDSON way for over half an hour afterwards, and they had STET:HIP an absolutely clear course. . Argument From the facts also that the Amazonas passed within of Counsel. fifty feet of the dredge' and that the Montezuma, notwithstanding the alleged sheer caused by her impact with the Osier, or the force of the wind, causing her to trail off as described by some witnesses, was able to follow her steamer within little more - than 50 feet, it is apparent that had the Amazonas taken the proper course as marked by the lights and buoys, her consort, the Montezuma, would have been able to follow that course within little more than 50 feet leeway, notwithstanding her impact with the Osier, or the force of the wind. The defendants further seek to establish contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs on the ground that the captain of the dredge when he saw the collision impending "should have dropped the dump . scow astern of the dredge, and then raised his anchor spuds, and let the dredge, and scow swing with the current." This is the only fault or. default attributed to the plaintiff ship by the defendants' preliminary act, by which they are bound. It is clear from the evidence, however, that until they reach the bend in the channel at the North light- ship, the usual and proper course of down-bound boats; from upwards of 2 miles above the bend, would take
473 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIII. 1911 them head on to the point where the dredge was at THE work the night of the collision, and until they passed I)IINBAR AND SIILLIYAN the lightship and failed to make the turn following the DR C E a. D !INf g i lights and bu Y o ys markingthe channel , there would be slips nothing to indicate to those on the dredge that the THE AMAZONAS AND down bound. boat was not going to follow the proper MONTEZUMA course, and unless there was something unusual to AND THE DAVIDSON prompt them to do so, there would of course be no STEAMSHIP Co. reason for those on the dred g g e to have dropp ed the Arg — um ent dump scow astern or raised their anchors, or taken of Counsel. any other steps with a view to avoiding a collision. And if the down bound boat took a long turn at the lightship, she could come comparatively close to the dredge within 200 or 300 feet, before a collision would appear to be imminent to the people on the dredge. At the rate of speed at which they were moving they would go 300 feet in less than 2.0 seconds. Defendants further contend that plaintiffs were at fault in not having a man aboard the dredge specially designated as lookout, though it does not appear, in view of the foregoing situation, how such a lookout could have observed anything to indicate that a collision was pending any sooner than did those on board, who as some of the witnesses put it, were all supposed to be on the lookout, and unless such lookout could have discovered the danger at least two minutes before the collision took place, or while the defendant ships were practically half a mile away, he could not have been of any assistance in avoiding it. It is quite clear, therefore, from the situation existing here that had there been a dozen lookouts nothing unusual would have been apparent to them until the defendants' ships got within 500 feet at most, of the dredge, therefore the absence of a specially detailed lookout did not in any way contribute to this collision.
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS 479 It has been held, however, that "a vessel anchored 1911 in a place where other vessels are not reasonably to be THE DUNBAR AND expected to anchor need not maintain an anchor watch." SULLIVAN See the Erastus Corning (1). DR DGING oc o. And when such a watch is necessary "it is sufficient to have someone of the crew on deck, though without AMAZO A N ND A S. any specific duties assigned him". Seabrook v. Raft MONTEZUMA AND THE of Railroad Cross Ties (2). DAVIDSON Defendants further set up that their ships blewr$ l ~SHIE • alarm signals to warn those on the dredge of the Argameatr impending danger, and that the latter should then of Counsel have taken steps to avoid the collision. If the statements of Capt. Hayberger and the witness Gaunia are to be believed, all these signals were blown before the collision between the Montezuma ' and the Osier, and because that collision appeared threatening. It was impossible then to tell what effect this collision would have, even if it did take place, and it ' is . absurd to say therefore' that these signals, .if blown, were intended for a warning to those on the dredge, or that there was anything then present to indicate that a collision was imminent between the Montezuma and the dredge. Plaintiffs submit, however, that the defendants' evidence as to these signals is not such as to enable the court to find that they were given at any particular time or place, or that they had any bearing whatever on the subsequent collision with the dredge, or that they were given at all. It is clear, however, that there was no time to complete either of the manoeuvres suggested by the defendants from the moment the collision could have been seen to be imminent, or from the time the alarm signals are said to have been given, which according to (1) 25 Fed. Rep. 572. (2) 40 Fed. Rep. 596. 31
480 E.X CH 1:Q U h:11 CO U ki'l' it 1{ Y U ii I'S, 1911 Capt. Hayberger would be "close to a minute" before THE the crash. ':D1NBAR AND SULLIVAN In answer to this question in their preliminary act DREDGING Co. the defendants say the Amazonas was kept as close THE v s . lfii, to the north light as she could be, and the Montezuma AMAZONAS followed in tow as closely as she could. The captain AND MONTEZENA of the Montezuma signalled to the dredge to drop their AND TILE DAVIDSON dump scow astern, and called out to raise the spuds or STEAMSD Co. anchors of the dredge. Further comment is unneces- Ar —u-ieiit sary on the manner in which these measures to avoid of c. ► „""e'' the collision were carried out, or on their effectiveness. When the collision became imminent to those on the dredge, orders were given. to raise the anchors and get clear. It may be that to have attempted to let the scow go would have been better judgment, and perhaps could have been accomplished more quickly. However, in the "agony of collision"the former course seemed best to the captain of the dredge, and he gave the orders accordingly. It may be also that either of these manoeuvres would have been unwise under the circumstances, for if there had been time to carry them out, they might have resulted in much greater damage, with perhaps loss of life as was the opinion expressed by Capt. Mains. And in the Norge (1) it was held that "on the approach of another vessel a dredge at work should keep its position." However this may be, the law is clearly laid down that an error of navigation or judgment committed "in extremis" is not to be deemed a fault in the vessel committing the error where the peril is produced solely by the mismanagement of those in charge of the other vessel, nor will it relieve the latter from liability, though it directly contributes to the collision (2). (1) 55 Fed. Rep. 347. (2) The Bywell Castle, 4 F. D. 219. The Ship Cuba v. McMillan, 26 S. C. R. 651. The Cape Breton v. the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co. 3G S. C. R. 564.
VOL. XIII,1 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 481 In their search for an excuse for having collided with 1011 a ship at anchor the defendents plead in paragraph 6 'T DUNB:RE AND "that neither the Brian Boru nor the dump scow SULLIVAN moored alongside had proper lights". 1)1 Douro Co. The evidence showed, however, that the dredge had TitE SHIN$ her own electric plant, with which she and her attend- AMAN Az D o~rAS ant scow were brilliantly lighted. Defendants urge MONTEZUMA lliTHE however, that there should have been a light on. the .D AvinsoN scow itself, but the evidence of all those familiar witljsll'as' IN the workings of a dredge is that such is not customary, ;".,.~ and is entirely unnecessary while the scow is alongside of'6 " 1""' the dredge, as it is abundantly lighted from the latter's plant. Capt. Johnson says that coming up on the Osler on the night of the collision, he saw the lights of the dredge a couple of miles off and saw the scow lying alongside her half a mile away. Capt. Hayberger himself says he saw the dredge's lights from Ballard's Reef, practically two miles away; and he should have expected her to have. an attendant scow alongside. Notwithstanding this he brings his ship and her consort right down onto the dredge. Is it to be pre- sumed that he would have altered his course one fraction of an inch in coming down this two mile stretch, if there had been a coal ail lantern on the corner of the scow? And after he had brought his ship sufficiently close to make such , â lantern dis- cernible in the glare of the electric lights, as Anderson, mate of the Montezuma, , says "If the scow had been lit up with a dozen lights at each end, they couldn't have done more than they did to avoid striking it". The jurisdiction of this court is determined by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890; The Merchant 31
482 EXCIIEQUEB CoUM' fil?PORTS. [VOL. XIII. 1911 Shipping Act, 1894, as applied by the Admiralty Act l'Hx R.S.C., chap. 141, secs. 3, 4 and 5. DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN This jurisdiction extends over so much of the bound- Dx CO. ary lakes and rivers as are within the Canadian side THE SuIPS of the International boundary line. See Regina v. AMAZONAS Sharp (1) ; Rex v. Meikleham (2) . AND MONTEZLTIIA The waters within which this cause of action arose, AND THE DAVIDSON and within which the defendant ships are admitted to 5TI;AMSIIIr have been seized, are all in the County of Essex in the Argument Province of Ontario. of C0u us4l. Neither the United States nor any other foreign country can have any jurisdiction over them, and unless they are beyond the jurisdiction of every court,—a sort of neutral ground within which tort-feasors may do as they wish,—they must be within the jurisdiction of this court. And the court has jurisdiction whether or not the vessels or the parties belong tâ a foreign nation or that the matters complained of occured in foreign waters, provided the property is within the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the persons is acquired (3). Subject to the general limitations of Courts of Admiralty as to subject-matter, water and places, such courts have jurisdiction of libels in rem for injuries tô and by vessels without regard to the citizenship of the parties, nationality of the vessels or place of injury. In England and in Canada the Admiralty Courts by the Act of 1861 giving them jurisdiction of "any claim for damages done by any ship" have jurisdiction of actions in rem and in personam for injuries by vessels to persons and property wherever situated, the test of (1) 5 0, P. R. 135. (2) 11 O. L. R. 366. (3) 1 A. & E. Enc. of Law (2ncl ed.) page 652. The Diana, Lush. 539. The Griefswald, 1 Swab. 430. The Courier, Lush. 541. The .Johann Friederich, I Win. Rob. 36.
VOL XIIL1- EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. jurisdiction being the origin rather than the place of the injury. (1) In the Johann Teriederich (2)' in which the court was held to have jurisdiction where a Danish ship was sunk by a Bremen ship, Dr. Lushington said:-"An alien friend is entitled to sue in our courts on same footing as a British born subject, -and if -the ÙO foreigner in this case has been resident here and the 12 cause of . action has arisen infra corpus comitatus, objection could have been taken. All questions of collision are questions 'communis . juris, but in the case of mariners' wages, whoever engages voluntarily to serve on board a foreign ship necessarily undertakes to be bound by the laws of the country to which such ship belongs, and the legality of his claim must be tried by such law. One of the most important distinctions therefore, respecting cases where both parties are foreigners, is whether the' case be.communis juris or not. v If so, then parties must wait until the vessel that has done the injury lias to its own country, this remedy might be altogether lost, for she might never return, and if she did, there is - no part of the world to which they might not be sent for their redress ". Although it is clear, that the jurisdiction of this court extends over the waters within which this cause of action arose, and the waters within which • the defendant ship are admitted to have been seized, the defendants urge that by reason of Article 7 of the Ashburton Treaty, the jurisdiction cannot be enforced " by a seizure of the offending ships while they are passing through these waters, because this treaty declared these waters should be equally free and open to the ships, vessels and boats of both parties to it. (1) 25 A. E. Enc. of Law. p. 1007 ; Mersey Docks etc., Board v. Turner (1893) A.C. 468. (2) 1 Win. Rob. 36. 483 191 T,Er. D u~NB AR AND so~.r.tVAN Ditr ,°,1 ° -' l'El,s Sltirti the .l-"A44-I`ì5 Avu vxI ; o z A EA e1 N l) a'.Nf.l~ ',Llox no ' T E S C„ H . IP • Argument o f Counsel. returned
`i
484 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIII. 1911 The natural and ordinary meaning of these words THE would appear to make them applicable to an attempt DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN by one of the parties to close to navigation any portion Dx Co Iva of the waters covered by the treaty, as in the present USnrr controversy over the proposed Long Sault dam in the ThE AmAzoNAs St. Lawrence river, rather than to oust the jurisdic- AND MONTEZUMA tion of either country over that portion of these waters AND THE DAVIDSONwithin their respective sides of the boundary line, or STEEMSRI' co. the right to enforce that jurisdiction by due process Argument of law. of Counsel. There can be no question that this court would have power to exercise its jurisdiction by seizure of an offending ship if she came to anchor within these waters. Its exemption from seizure therefore (if it be exempt) must depend on its keeping moving. In other words as long as the offending ship "keeps moving ", although in the waters included within the jurisdiction of this court, the order of the court cannot be enforced against it; and if an offending ship cannot be seized at the instance of these plaintiffs while passing through these waters, and within the jurisdiction of this court, it could not be seized at the instance of a British subject who had been damaged by her within in its own territory, and who could therefore be obliged to seek redress in a foreign Court, unless indeed the wrongdoer should be so obliging as to stop long enough to enable the warrant to be served. (See section 685 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. It is quite clear therefore that the Act contemplates that the process of the Court shall be effective over vessels moving as well as stationary, and this is the practice all over the world. The only reported decision from which the contrary view might be taken is the old Scotch case of Borjesson
.VOL. XIII. EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 485 v. Carlberg, (1) where a Norwegian vessel which had igll started from the port of Greenock on an ocean voyage, THE D was pursued by a tug manned by thirty armed men, and DSUL~A captured by force of arms. Here the seizure was set uN INC cô aside on the ground that the mode of arrest had been Trig SHIT made "nimiously and oppressively". This decision AMAZONAS A ND • did not go so far as to say that the process of the court M O•~ TEZUMA AD TFiE . could not be effective against a moving vessel, but nAviDsoN held that the manner in which the warrant was enforced STE Msn1 was improper, and as stated by the Lord Chancellor .trg nment it was purely and simply a question of practice. of Counsel. The plaintiffs, however, submit that the right to use these waters, which is_ all that the Treaty, ôn the face of it, appears to reserve to the parties to it, does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts of the respective countries over such part of the waters covered by the Treaty as may be within their respective boundary lines, nor does the fact that she keeps under way while passing through them exempt an offending ship from the consequences of her acts. On the contrary the very fact that she is a wrong-doer deprives her of the right of free passage, which the Treaty otherwise gives her. The present case, however, is distinguishable from the D. C. Whitney case (2) in that in the latter the cause of action arose in the harbour of Sandusky, Ohio, in *the United States of America, while in the case at bar, the collision took place in the County of Essex within the jurisdiction of the'court. The plaintiffs submit, therefore, that this collision was caused by the failure of the defendant ships to obey the " starboard hand rule" in coming down this narrow channel, and by their getting out of the channel altogether at the point where the collision took place. Further, that the defendants have not only failed to satisfy the onus thrown upon them to prove that they (1) 3 App. Cas. 1316. (2) 38 S. C. R: 303.
486 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIII. 1911 were not negligent, or that the plaintiffs were guilty THE of contributory negligence, hut the plaintiffs have been DIINIAR AND SU7.LJl'AN able to go much further than were obliged to go in order CO. to succeed, and have proved that the damages have THE SxI l's been caused solely by the negligence of the defendants. ADiAzoNAs AND The cause of action arose in Canadian waters, and MoNTEzET,I., within the jurisdiction of this court. The defendant AND TUE DAVIDSON ships are admitted to have been seized in Canadian STEAAI CO. s1IiI' waters within this jurisdiction. (1) Arg7r.. s!it • Canada has never, by Treaty or otherwise, surrend- of Counsel ered her sovereignty over these waters and as long as she retains that sovereignty, her Courts having jurisdiction in the premises, will administer justice therein by due process of law. J. H. Rodd for defendants: On the 29th day of November, 1909, a motion was made before the Local Judge in Admiralty at Osgoode Hall asking that the writ of summons issued herein and all subsequent proceedings be set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The motion was refused but leave given in the order to renew the objection on the hearing. At the trial of the action the objection was renewed an.d the material used upon the motion offered in. evidence and the objection was reserved and the trial proceeded with. The objection to the jurisdiction is two fold,—First, the material used upon the motion and put in at the trial shows that at the time the writ and warrant were issued, and the affidavits in support were made, the ships were not in Canadian waters. The only authority for the bringing of the proceedings against the ships as plainly appears by the evidence is sub-section (a) of section 13 of the Admiralty Act, and if the plaintiff (1) See Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Company v. Milwaukee, 11 Ex.C.R. 193
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. is not within the requirements of that sub-section then the suit was not properly instituted. That subsection says that a suit may be instituted when "The shipor property, the subject of the suit is, at the time of the insti- tution of the suit within the district of such Registry. This as appears by the evidence was not the case. The suit was instituted in September and even the cons- structive seizure did not. take place until about . th. e middle of October. This objection was raised and discussed in the case of the D. C. Whitney (1) and the objection was held °c counsel. to be a valid one. See especially' at page 311 where it is said "I do not think it is possible to successfully argue that the right to initiate an action, make affidavits and issue a warrant, can exist before the foreign ships even come within our territorial jurisdiction. " Then the second objection to the jurisdiction is upon still broader grounds. It is admitted that the ships are of United States registry, that their owners are Americans and that the ships were seized while passing from one American port to another, but through Canadian waters. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are also citizens of the United States doing work for the Government of their own country, and the only excuse for bringing the suit in a Canadian Court is that -the injury to the plaintiff's dredge was done in Canadian waters. Is that enough? It is submitted that it is not. The evidence shows that defendant ships have been engaged entirely in connection with shipping on the Great lakes and the rivers dividing Canada from the United States, which by the Ashburton Treaty were made common highways for ships of both countries, and are by the effect of that Treaty entitled to free and (1) 38 S.C.R.. 30 487 1911 THE DSU LBLAIR AND SULLIVAN D7"'D°INr THE SHIPS AMAZONAS A 1 7 1 ?1'ZoNT7.ZI MA U U HIr. A ' A\v' TIT ST EA C M o. S HTL' Argument
488 EX CH EQUER COURT IZ EE'OW-i 1S. r . [VOL. XIII. 1911 uninterrupted passage while passing through, as these THE ships were, when the seizure herein was made. DU 1BAR AND SULLIVAN It is submitted that the matter is concluded by the )1zr C n . O .c ase of the D. C. Whitney J , above cited. The present case is in every respect the same as the one cited with THE Sul Pg AMAZONAS this single exception, that the collision took place in AND MONTEZ MA Canadian waters. I refer particularly to page 309. AAn i)AVIn T S I O `S ~ It is true that at page 310 of the judgment the court STEAMSHIP Co. referred to the fact that in that case the wrongd oing g , ~ if Argun.e,.c any, took place in a foreign port; but the learned Judge of Counsel. premised his reference by the statement that he could not see "how there could be a pretence of jurisdiction" so that even if such a circumstance had existed it would have been simply a pretence of jurisdiction and no more. The whole tenor of the judgment in that case shows that the decision rests upon broader grounds.. I have not overlooked the judgment in the case of the Milwaukee (1) The judgment, however, went off on the point that there had been a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction, and the learned Judge in giving judgment refers at page 181 to the difference between the two cases. It is true that in• the judgment there is an academic discussion of the questions raised in the Whitney case, and it is apparent that the learned Judge did not agree with the judgment of the Supreme Court, but it is submitted that the decision of the latter court must be and is binding upon us. Then part 10 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which by Sec. 517 is made applicable to all of His Majesty's Dominions, may be referred to. It is therein provided when and for what offence a foreign ship may be seized when within the territorial jurisdiction, viz, when such ship has in any part of the world done injury to (1) 11 E. C. R. 179.
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 489 a British ship. The maxim expressio unius exclusio 1911. alterius applies and under no other circumstances can THE UNB A RAN ND a foreign ship be forcibly brought into a British port D SULLIVA or be detained D RLrD(1IN(3 . Co. Then upon the facts it is submitted the plaintiffs THE SHIPS cannot succeed. Let us first look at the position of AMAZONAS AND the dredge and scow and assume that the plaintiffs' MONTEZUMA AND TILE evidence upon this questions to be accepted. There DAVIDSON is no doubt upon the evidence that they were within 'TECM$H1F the 600 foot channel, having a depth of seventeen feet, :Argument which had existed and been in use for many years but ""'"'l• one that was being deepened. Of the 600 feet at least 400 feet have been completed and Captain Maines at page 74 says "it was 450 easy" and Munn at page 103 says the same. The plaintiff Dunbar at page 20 says that the channel had been completed "with the exception of 50 feet of the east edge" though not thrown open to navigation. The dredge must have been a little distance from this outward. The dredge was.28 feet wide and the scow 25, so that according to the plaintiffs' evidence they were distant from the East side of the old channel over one hundred feet, and if the evidence of Captain Maines and Edward Munn is to be accepted (and they were called on behalf of the plaintiff) distant less than 50 feet from the marked channel. Then as to the distance from the turn at the North light ship, the plaintiffs are bound by their Preliminary Act which says 500 yards south-east from North light ship, and the evidence fully warrants the conclusion that this is about correct, though some of the witnesses gave even a greater distance and of course some gave less. Now all the witnesses for the defence testify that the defendant ships were following the usual and proper
490 EX CliEQULR COURT REPORTS. IVOL. XIII. 1911 course and holding up against a strong wind with the THE tow tailing off a little. Captain Johnson of the steamer • DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN Osier naturally, to account for striking the tow and to »RE L ANG O. save himself, says he was being crowded to the east side THE v S . IM'S of the channel. The evidence of Captain Maines, how- AMAZONAs ever, at . page 78, bears out the statement of the de- AND MONTEZUMA fendants' witness. He was watching the boats as they AND THE DAVIDSON approached the light ship and says they were follow- co. S 1171 ing the usual channel. He admits he was not watching A,,tu,;,,,,,, all the time after that but as soon as the turn was made of Counsel. h e saw the danger. There is no doubt that the Osier struck or rubbed the tow and threw her out of course. Captain Mailles frankly admits that there was no fault in the tow, and the only fault alleged is that the steamer went too far over. The captains and the crews of both the Amazonas and the Montezuma all swear positively that this is not the fact, and the only other two men who saw the boats coming down were Maines and Johnson, and they do not agree. Then could it be so that the steamer crowded over to the east side of the channel as she passed the dredge ? Her length is 287 feet, the tow 360 feet, and the line from 300 to 400 feet making a total length of nearly 1000 feet. If the plaintiffs' evidence were true the tow, tailing off as it was to a considerable extent, would have struck the dredge itself beyond a doubt as the scow was well up forward of the dredge. The circumstances bear out the evidence of the defence that the steamer was held well up to the west side of the channel, and that the tow, being thrown out of her course by the upbound steamer, was the cause of the accident without fault of the tow. There is, however, grave fault on the part of those in charge • of the dredge. She was in fact anchored in a place where under the circumstances of the night
VOL. XIII.1 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS 491. she was an obstruction to navigation. The dredge 1 911 and scow were there by virtue of a contract which Tim provided in the strongest and most definite terms that this was not to be done, and necessarily so. Those u't1 .(1)0.T.0 in charge of the dredge were guilty of . still graver i. ,l,: SniPa faults. It was anchored beyond question in one of AMAZONAS 'the most dangerous parts of the river, and whatever Ml,. ,:.vi,:~ might be said as to the necessity of a watch or look ».w,uson n i out in the day time . there should be one at night 'and siN Co .IIIP beyond question such a night as this. A1;l`uiol nt The evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses show the °' C1)ü1LNPL necessity of looking out, though that part of .their • duty is badly performed. But even as it is, and without the look-out, the accident could have been avoided if the men on the dredge had taken the proper precaution when they in fact did see the ships and saw that the tow was likely to strike. The simplest thing to have done was to have thrown off the lines of 'the scow, which undoubtedly could have been done in a moment or two, and the scow being well in advance of the dredge with its front pockets loaded would have immediately gotten in motion. But even if as stated by some of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the force of the wind might have held her stationery till the tow reached it, yet being free no injury would have been done to the dredge, but the scow would have simply been shoved • ahead. Instead of doing the thing they ought to have done the crew attempted to get the dredge in motion ; and. the plaintiffs, by their workmen, are not only therefore guilty of contributory negligence but are entirely at fault. See the Hemminger v. Ship Porter. (1) ; the Ogemaw (2). (1) 6 Ex. C. R. 154 & 208. (2) 32 Fed. Rep. 919.
492 EXCH EQUER COURT REPO1, TS. V O L. X 111.. 1911 GARROW, L. J., now (April 6th, 1911) delivered Til E judgment. DUN'BAR AND SULLIVAN On September 29, 1908, the barge Montezuma in DREDC,IN1, Cu. t ow of the steamship Amazonas collided with the v Brian Boru,' a dredge belonging to the plaintiffs, THE SHIPS AaMAioNAs anchored and at work in what is called the "Lime Kiln AND MOSTEZUM A Crossing" in the Detroit river, thereby causing injury AND TILL DAVIDSON to the dredge and interrupting the dredging operations STEAOSIB l' co. of the p la la i intiff f s s until the inju r w ie r s e r e pa ired. The ae~ nriK fe1, collision occurred about 2 a. m. The night was dark Judgment. with a moderate wind blowing from the west. The dredge was from the United States and was working under a contract with the United States Government at the time of the collision, that Government having undertaken the deepening and widening of the channel in question, so as to give a width at the point in question of 600 feet. Of this the westerly 400 feet had been completed and lights on each side placed for the use of navigation and was the proper channel in use for such purpose. A portion of the remaining 200 feet had also been completed, the work being continued along the face from the westerly side of the completed 400 feet, and the dredge at the time of the collision was situated about 150 feet to the east of the easterly side of such 400 feet channel. There was also a scow alongside, attached to the dredge, for use in the dredging operations. This scow was upon the west side of the dredge and it was with the scow that the Montezuma actually collided, although the impact also injured the dredge. The collision, it is not disputed, occurred upon the Canadian side of the International boundary, and therefore in Canadian waters. The ships were both foreign, from the United States, where also the defendants, their owners, reside.
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. The collision itself is not disputed, but. the de-fendants say they are not liable because (1) the col- lision was not the result of negligence; (2) that there was contributory negligence in not maintaining a li g ght and a lookout or watchman on the scow,, and 'in not casting off from the dredge when they saw, or should have seen, that a collision was likely to occur ; M and (3) that this court is without' jurisdiction, the v parties and the ships all being foreign, although the collision occurred in Canadian waters. I a m against the defendants on all three of their contentions, - which I will consider in their order. As is, I think, not infrequent in collision cases, the evidence of the crews does not harmonize, those of the dredge accusing while those upon the ship excuse' as best they can. The case, however, so far as the the facts are concerned, does not, in my opinion, turn upon any fine points in the evidence which, taken as a whole, really leaves no doubt that the navigation of the ships on the occasion in question was greatly at fault. The dredging operations had been going on for years and the captains of both ships knew that the dredge was working at or near where she actually was on the night in question. Her electric arc lights were lighted and were visible for more than a mile. In order to work, she had to be well lit up, and also to be anchored. The tow line between the ships . was between 300 and 400 feet in length. This seems to be unnecessarily long, but I cannot .on the evidence say that it was negligently so. They were proceeding down stream with a current of about four miles an hour in their favour, steam up, and a westerly wind blowing. About 1000 feet up stream ' or northerly from the dredge, the direction from which the ships were coming, there is a slight turn towards the south- .493 i 9 11 THE D rTJ~TBRA nn 'p aLBLA VAv D1)G,5r THE 11 . 1'S A IIAZONAs A~Tli oN-Ez iA non 2nis AviDso. STE MSHIL' Reasons for Judgment.
494 EXCHEQUE}:R. COURT REPORTh [VOL. XI1i . 911 west in the channel. Until that turn is reached, the THE course of vessels approaching down stream towards 1)UNBAR AND SULLIVAN where the dredge would be, about on the dredge, and DREDGING at the turn the proper course necessarily changes in THE SHIPS order to keep within the 400 feet channel. And good AMAZONAS navigation, concurring in this respect with what AND MONTEZU ➢IA would seem reasonable even to a lay mind, requires AND THE DAVInsoN that even in ordinary circumstances a ship proceeding STEAM Co. down stream with another ship in tow, in approaching ,t,.,,.,,,,,, ,.,,,. and on reaching this turn should keep close to the ittigmen t. westerly bank. This is fully recognized even by the defendants' witnesses, the captains and seamen on board of the ships, for they all say that that is what they did. I do not, however, accept their statements. The first mate of the Osier (a steamship bound up stream, which the defendants passed at a little above the bend) an intelligent and wholly disinterested witness, said that the Osier was at the extreme easterly side of the 400 feet channel, and while in that position "the steamer Amazonas and tow was hugging us down close, they were close also to us, they were too close altogether", with the result that "the port quarter of the barge rubbed lightly the port quarter of the Osier, but not enough to hinder the steerage way of the Osier nor yet of the barge as far as I could tell"; and this is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. That, then, being shown to be the position just above the bend, the next position which in my opinion is clearly proved by the evidence is that the Amazonas passed the dredge and scow at a distance of about 50 feet to the west of the scow. Mr. Neff, Captain of the dredge, puts the distance at not over 50 feet and says the vessel was to the east of the easterly line of the 400 foot channel. Mr. Pennock, the engineer of the dredge, says "I saw the Amazonas coming close
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 495 to us, she was out of the channel, she was about 50 1 911 feet from the dredge, she was running us pretty close; TILE DI Nu AND she was off the channel altogether". Evidence to the s urIIvAN same effect was also given by Alexander Anderson nRNGlNa and John Breault, deck-hands on the dredge, and this THE SHIPS class of evidence was scarcely disputed. The plain- AMAZONAS AhD tiffs' witnesses were not even cross-examined as to MO TEZUMA AND TH E it, and it was not specifically contradicted by any one. ]~AVID T ZN called for the defence, although Charles Ahlstrom, STE SHIP the mate on the Amazonas, "not in answer to questions Reasons for asked by the learned counsel for the defence but by Judgment. myself, after much hesitation and an evident attempt - to avoid the answer, finally said "Well, it must have been a couple of hundred feet or so off, anyway. Q. A couple of hundred feet to the west (i.e. the ship)? A. Yes sir,—more or less, I . cannot say". Under the circumstances I place no reliance. on this evidence. Then we have the evidence of Mr. Anderson, the master of the Montezuma, who said that until they met the Osler, the Montezuma had been following quite regularly the line of the Amazonas. Upon passing the Osler, he says they were within 75 feet of the west bank of the channel, following theAmazonas in range. The wind about which "so much, too much in my opinion, is said, appears not to have bothered them down to that moment. Then came the slight touch of the Osler, and it and the wind and the current are blamed for having sent the Montezuma so far out of her course as to strike the scow, which must have been at least 500 feet easterly from the westerly bank of the 400 foot channel, which all the defendants' witnesses say they were so closely hugging_ or attempt- ing to hug. I do not believe them; I believe the plaintiffs' witnesses, that the leading ship, the Amazonas, was to the east of the 400 foot channel, and therefore 32
496 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIII. 1911 entirely out of her proper course when abreast of the THE dredge. The dredge was a fixture. We know almost DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN to a foot where it was, namely, its easterly side DRELOIINO3 Co. between 150 to 180 feet to the east of the easterly v. side of the completed 400 foot channel. The width THE SHIPS • A3'MAZONAS of the dredge was 28 feet and of the scow 25 feet. De- AND MONTEZUMA ducting those would still leave the extreme westerly AAV THE DAVIDSON side of the scow almost 100 feet to the east of the east- STEAMSHIP Co. erlybank of the 400 foot channel, or entirely out of the way of vessels who were not at that time, as every Reasons for Judgment. one knew, intended to pass beyond the limits of that channel as defined by the lights and buoys. The dredge with its scow was therefore where it had a perfect right to be. It was anchored and at work. It was brilliantly illuminated, so much so that all its immediate surroundings, including the scow, were plainly visible at a considerable distance, and there was absolutely no excuse in the circumstances for the collision, which in my opinion was entirely due to the careless and negligent navigation of the leading ship, the Amazonas. Nor was there in my opinion any reasonable evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. The absence of a light on the scow as a contributing cause, considering the brilliancy of the lights on the dredge, borders on the absurd; so under the circumstances does the objection as to the absence from the dredge or scow of a person charged with the duty of watchman. There is more reason perhaps in the suggestion that the plaintiffs' servants might by casting off the lines of the scow have set her loose, and thus either prevented or at least mitigated the damages; but the evidence is in my opinion wholly insufficient to justify fixing the plaintiffs with any fault in that respect. A plaintiff, otherwise faultless,
VOL. XIII.] RXCTIEQUER COURT REPORTS. 49Y is not to be put in fault simply because in a momentary 19 11 crisis caused by another's carelessness, be does not THE DUNEAR AND make as much of the moment as a witnessl in cold SULLIVAN . blood, after the event, thinks he might have done. co I1VG I have great doubts about the signalling which theTHE S HIrE plaintiffs' witnesses say took place. Mate Johnston AMAZONAS AND on the Osler did not hear the danger signal (5 blasts) M ONTE ZUMA which they are sure were given when near the Osier, DAVIDSON neither did Mr. Colbourne above, nor Captain Maines. STEcQSHIP below, who, were in positions to hear if it had been Reasons for given. It is an unsual signal, and to a mariner, one s"agmewt, likely, I, think, both to be observed and remembered. At all events *I accept the evidence of those who were on the dredge, that whether these signals were or were not given they were not heard upon the dredge. , When Mr. Neff, the captain of the dredge, the first to see the Amazonas when abreast of the dredge, saw her, he looked back to see where the barge in tow was, and seeing its position it was then for the first time that he or any one on the dredge became really aware of danger. - He at once ordered the dipper, which was down, to be taken up, and the men to go to their posts to get up the anchors, but before the men could even get there the crash came ; and little wonder, as a slight calculation will show, for assuming that the speed was 7 miles an hour, or about 600 feet per minute, they had only that time in which it took the Montezuma to traverse the length of her tow line, say .350 feet, or a little over half a minute to do it in. And even if the lines had been thrown off as the defendants suggest, I am not at all convinced that the scow would have floated down stream fast enough and far enough to have saved the dredge from the collision. The scow was partially loaded and was lying flat against. the side of the dredge. 3~~
498 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS VOL. XIII. 1911 The set of the current and of the wind were both un- TIiE favorable, and it was all a matter literally of moments. DUNBAR AND SULLIVAN Upon the whole I think as I have said before, that DREDGING the attempt to establish contributory negligence THE v S . H IPS wholly fails. AMNAZONAS The remaining question is as to the jurisdiction of AND MONTEZCUMA this court. I had to consider this question on the AND THE DAVIDSON defendants' preliminary motion to set aside proceed- s TE C N o .SHIP ings, which I refused, but reserved leave to renew at Reasons for the trial. No new facts however appeared upon the Judgment. trial, and I therefore remain of the opinion I then expressed. The subject was considered and the same conclusion arrived at by my late learned and careful predecessor in the Milwaukee, (1) upon somewhat similar facts, which he quite properly, in my opinion, distinguished from the D.C. Whitney (2), so much relied on by the defendant, upon the ground that in the latter the collision occurred in United States waters. In this case the plaintiffs' property was injured while in Canadian territory, and therefore under the protection of Canadian law, by the negligence of the servants of the owners of the ships who are the defendants here. The cause of action arose and continued from the moment of the collision down to the commencement of the proceedings. See the Bold Buccleugh (3) . The arrest was therefore a mere step in the course of enforcing rights which in a way depended upon the arrest itself to confer jurisdiction, as was apparently the situation in the Whitney case. Sec. 18, of The Admiralty Act (R. S. C., 1906, chap. 141) upon which the defendants rely, has relation to procedure, and not primarily at least, to jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court is conferred by sections 2 and 3 of that Act, and by the Imperial Statute, The (1) 11 Ex.C.R. 179. (2) 38 S.C.R. 303. (3) 7 Moo. P. C. 267.
VOL. XIII] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 499 Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. And by sub- 1911 sec. 2 of sec. 2 of the latter statute a Colonial Court THE DUNBAR AND of Admiralty, subject to the provisions of the Act, is s atI.IVAN given the same jurisdiction over "the like .places, IN4 DR coG persons, masters and things" as the Admiralty juris- THE %HIPS diction of the High Court in England, whether exist- AMAZONAS AND ing by virtue of any statute or otherwise, and may MONTE ZUMA exercise such jurisdiction in like manner and to as DAVIDSON full an extent as the High Court in England. Sec. 3 STEc%SHIP provides that the legislature of a British possession Reasons for may declare any court of unlimited civil jurisdiction Judgment. to be a Colonial Court of Admiralty, and provides for the exercise by that court of its jurisdiction under the Imperial Act, and limits territorially or otherwise the extent of such jurisdiction. Under these provisions the Canadian Parliament enacted the statute first before referred to (as originally passed), and conferred jurisdiction in Admiralty upon the Exchequer Court of Canada. By sec. 4, this jurisdiction is conferred in the broadest terms as.that "which may be had or enforced in any colonial Court of Admiralty under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890." Sec. 6 provides that the Governor General in Council may from time to time constitute any part of Canada an Admiralty District, and establish at some. place within the Admiralty District a Registry of the . Exchequer Court on its Admiralty side, and divide an Admiralty District into one or more Registry Divisions. Sec. 7 establishes the Province of Ontario as an Admiralty District, subject to alteration by the Governor General in Council. Sec. 8 provides for the-appointment of Local Judges, and sec. 10 provides that the Local Judge shall, within the district for which he is appointed, have and exercise the jurisdiction and the powers and authority relating thereto of the Judge
500 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. VOL. XIII. 1911 of the Exchequer Court. Then comes sec. 18 which THE under the title "Procedure" begins "Any suit may be DUNBAR AND , SULLIVAN instituted in any Registry when" &c., the whole very DRE ODG,ING clearly intended not to limit the general jurisdiction THE s xIPs of the court, but to supply a guide in the case of a AMAZONAS possible conflict between two or more Registry dis - AND MONTEZUMA tricts. The confusion seems to arise from confounding AND THE DAVIDSON Admiralty Districts with Registry Districts, the two STEAMSHIP CO. being by any means identical, or at least necess- Reasons for arily so. Judgment. Sec. 685 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, (Imperial) which, by sec. 712, is made applicable to all Her Majesty's Dominions, enacts that when any district within which a court has jurisdiction either under that or any other Act or at common law, for any purpose whatsoever, is situate on the coast of any sea or abuts on or projects into any bay, channel, lake, river or other navigable water, the court shall have jurisdiction over any vessel being on or lying or passing off the coast or being in or near that bay, etc., and over all persons on board of such vessel. Our jurisdiction is, under the several statutes to which I have referred, the same as that of the High Court in England, and that that court would under similar circumstances have had jurisdiction, seems clear. See Marsden on Collisions. (1) It is indeed a stronger case than the Johann Friedrich (2) in which the collision occurred at sea, and yet the action was maintained. Nor in my opinion does the special provision made in The Merchant Shipping Act for injury by a foreign ship to British property, impair the general jurisdiction asserted in such cases as the one to which I have just referred, as counsel for the defendants contended. The other grounds upon which the defendants (1) 6th Ed. 198 et seq. (2) 1 W. Rob. 35.
VOL. XIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. relied was, that by Clause 7 of the Ashburton Treaty, a right of free navigation over the waters in question was conferred. But it by no means follows that the SuLLIVAN further right was also conferred of exemption from the legal consequences of negligence or other wrongs committed by a United States vessel while in Canadian territory, or by a Canadian vessel in United States territory. That was not, so far as appears, in the mind of either of the high contracting parties, and certainly ought not to be lightly imputed to them. There will, therefore, be judgment for the plaintiffs with costs, including the costs of the motion, and a reference as agreed at the trial, to take an account of the damages, including therein the damages caused by the loss of the use of the dredge while being with reasonable speed repaired. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for Plaintiffs; F. A. Hough. Solicitors for Defendants; Rodd & Wigle. 501 1911 THE DuNBAx AND DWI" T HE oHIPS AMAZONAS A ND MoNTEzUMA A NDTHE D AVIDSO N STE Al1I SHIF Co Reasons for Judgment.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.